Best corporate defense attorney in California

Appellant matchmaker sought review of the judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that upheld the decision of respondent athletic commission to revoke the matchmaker's license. The corporate defense attorney  ready to helps you in business litigations.

The matchmaker held a license as boxing matchmaker issued to him by the athletic commission. After he was charged with nine violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 18681, 18682, 18762 and the California Administrative Code, the athletic commission ordered that his license be revoked. The lower court affirmed. In affirming, the court held that (1) the athletic commission was one of those statewide agencies whose findings must be tested by the substantial evidence rule of Cal. R. Civ. P. 1094.5(b),(c), (2) although the evidence in support of one of the counts was too unsubstantial to support the commission's findings, the result of guilty on the remaining eight counts was not affected, (3) the notice was not unreasonably short in view of all of the circumstances, (4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance, (5) the matchmaker was not deprived of due process of law, and (6) that a licensee of the state who commits perjury in relation to the manner of exercise of his special prerogative needs no one to tell him that that is unbecoming conduct which reflects discredit upon boxing, the sport to which the license relates.

The court affirmed the judgment from the lower court and upheld the revocation of the matchmaker's license.

Petitioner attorney appealed the decision of respondent State Bar Court of California, which recommended that petitioner be suspended from law practice for one year, which term was to be stayed during two years of supervised probation and recommended that probation include 30 days' actual suspension, based on petitioner's violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103, and Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 2-110(A),(B).

Respondent State Bar Court of California recommended petitioner attorney be suspended from law practice for one year, which term was to be stayed during two years of supervised probation and 30 days of actual suspension, based on petitioner's actions in a dispute over a bill for court reporter services. Petitioner refused to answer a small claims complaint and filed a fraud complaint against the court reporter. The court affirmed the recommended discipline and ordered restitution of the court reporters' legal fees incurred as a result of the fraud action. The court held that the record adequately supported a conclusion that petitioner violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(c), by breaching his duty to counsel or maintain such actions only as appear to him or her legal or just, because there was no merit to his action for fraud, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(g), by breaching his duty not to encourage the commencement of action from a corrupt motive of passion or interest. The court held that the restitution was not a damage award, but a part of professional responsibility to a party who was forced to incur legal fees as a result of the petitioner's professional misconduct.

The court affirmed respondent State Bar Court of California's recommendation that petitioner attorney be suspended him from law practice for one year, which term was stayed during two years of supervised probation and imposed 30 days of actual suspension, and held that restitution to the court reporter for legal fees incurred as a result of petitioner's meritless action against her over a disputed bill was proper.